Talk:Star Trek (film)/Ten Forward
Given that it is firmly established now that we are dealing with an alternate timeline, how are we going to handle information from Adams' movie forwards? My opinon, given the massive changes to characters, ships, sets, etc is that they be treated as AU, and given their own articles, rather than being tacked onto the end of existing articles, or worse, overriding them.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :We talked a bit about it here and on IRC. We will most likely handle info from the new movie as we do info from the mirror universe. Extensive info about a subject will be given his/her/its own page (i.e. James T. Kirk (Abramsverse) or USS Enterprise (Abramsverse). Little tidbits from the new movie (such as info on the tribble) can go on existing pages, in italics. This excludes information which is stated to have occurred in the 24th century era where Spock and Nero originate, since that time period is a part of the original timeline. --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Fair enough...though...WOW...some of the articles that are SIGNIFICANTLY effected...just...wow...Capt Christopher Donovan 04:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ::I'd add that I seem to remember some of us requesting that discussion and final decision not be held until after the movie comes out, as many of us (such as Alan and myself) are keeping out of hearing spoilers, which means we can't participate in these pre-movie policy discussions. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :::Absolutely. We have to wait, because we'll have to decide, on a case by case basis, I would say, if the new/altered information can be included on the current page or if we need to create a new page. Based and what we, those who are spoiled, have learned so far, think that at the moment, Shran's suggestion makes most sense. This will give us a head start for the procedures after the movie is officially released and all hell breaks loose. ;-) --Jörg 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Wouldn't it be better to have an in-universe appendage than "Abramsverse", if we can? --Defiant 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :::::First of all, Talk:Star Trek (film). Second of all, yes, "Abramsverse" can't be used in-universe. When the movie comes out, some appendage may suggest itself. -- 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::Maybe "Nero's timeline" given that his going back in time causes its creation? Ausir 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::Uhura says "alternate reality". – 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::As said above, the issue is what to specifically refer to it as. As there are numerous alternate realities in Trek, we need something more specific.--31dot 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::In this case though, James T. Kirk (alternate reality) or even James T. Kirk (alternate) would be a simple enough distinction for a separate article. – 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :If Uhura calls it an "alternate reality" in the film, then maybe we should as well. However, in the interest of simplicity, I would prefer just "alternate", as in James T. Kirk (alternate). --From an Alternate Reality with Love :::::::::: James T. Kirk (alternate) is a very bad idea. Jim Kirk is Jim Kirk and should be at Jim Kirk, unless he is an android or something other than Jim Kirk. Natasha Yar was once both Natasha Yar and Natasha Yar (alternate) and that was quickly resolved by creating a separate section for her alternate reality. We can very well implement the same with the rest of these occurances by creating separate sections or separate italicizes portions, starting with "In an alternate reality created by character X, character Y was..." --Alan 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Using that reasoning, we should merge the mirror universe articles with their "original" counterparts. Jim Kirk is Jim Kirk in the mirror universe, too. Jim Kirk ceases to be the Jim Kirk that we know if he has experienced different events than "our" Kirk, no matter what character traits they might share. I also think that merely having all references from this film in a section at the bottom of the articles(when the entry is extensive) diminishes them and suggests that they are not as valid as the original universe. Shran's idea is a good starting place, I think.--31dot 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :Gah, I thought we agreed we were giving the alternate versions of the characters from the film their own separate article. If we're gonna do it like Tasha Yar, we need to all agree on that style, asap. --From AAAAAGH! with Love :Having alternate timeline info on the same page works well on Tasha Yar, so I can go for that. Pages like James T. Kirk, etc., are already pretty long, though. Should we do it anyway? --From Wherever I Am with Love ::::::::I think it should depend on the amount of information/length of the article. Kirk, definitely not.--31dot 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::: And I never said that we necessarily "throw it at the bottom", my last sentence clearly states to integrate it accordingly into the appropriate sections. --Alan 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::It seems kind of awkward to break up an article with information from essentially a different character.--31dot 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::: Well not as awkward as two articles on the same character... --Alan 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::It's not the same character.--31dot 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::: and you've seen the film and can confirm this how? --Alan 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::(ec) This is a self-proclaimed "alternate reality," so Kirk, et cetera, will all be "alternate" versions of a different Kirk, et cetera, (which is our Kirk), and I don't see any problem noting that, either through a new page or a section of their "main" page. If the problem is that, by disambiguating, we're treating Abrahams' vision as less-than the original Original characters, then we can always separate (alternate) and (original) articles with a disambiguation page in the place of character names. Alternatively, if we want to collect all the information on the main pages (Kirk, et cetera), then we can re-write them on the specific basis of being two separate continuity characters. "''James Tiberius Kirk was arguably the most famous and highly-decorated starship captain in the history of the Federation Starfleet. In the original timeline, he commanded the Constitution-class starships USS Enterprise and USS Enterprise-A, serving Federation interests as an explorer, soldier, time-traveler, and diplomat. In the alternate timeline, wacky hijinks ensue."--Tim Thomason 21:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Two words: alternate reality. I don't need to have seen it. Can you confirm that it is?--31dot 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Re Tim: I think that by adding to the bottom of(or in the relevant sections of) an article the newer film is diminished. As with the mirror universe, any article of significant length derived from the film should have a seperate article. This would enhance the film by giving it equal treatment.--31dot 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::An anon claimed it was (will be) called an "alternate reality" in the film (or the *original* timeline will, we'll have to wait and see). No one can or *should* confirm anything (until the film's released), but I gather that's just what spoilers say. I agree with Alan that this issue should really wait for the release date. ::::::::::I offered two suggestions that (I thought) wouldn't diminish the film. The first, as others proposed, of having two articles per character version. The second would be complete re-writing of page to give "equal weight" to both versions. For instance, noting that "James T. Kirk" is the name of a Captain who in one timeline did this, and another timeline did that.--Tim Thomason 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::If we're going to wait until its released to get this sorted out(which is fine with me, if that's what people want) then we might want to think about maintaining the posting ban until the issue is sorted out, to save us from undoing or changing everything later. I think rewriting the articles is not the best solution, as this would vastly increase their length(of already long articles), aside from other reasons I've stated.--31dot 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Nah, the posting ban is already decided, and J.J. Adams' ''Star Trek release is the only reason for it, not our consistent inability to reach consensus (we would've locked the site tons of times if that was an issue!). Personally, I see no problem with starting a few (alternate) articles in the short term to help consolidate information in the days after the release. This site is an in-universe compilation of a world that has two realities ("supposedly"). We shouldn't treat any differently, but we may have to at first.--Tim Thomason 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :Just letting everyone know that these are, essentially, the same characters. They have the same passions, the same abilities, the same personalities. Their histories have been somewhat altered (specifically Kirk's), but they are still the same characters. They are an extension of the same universe, just split off in a different timeline, unlike the mirror universe, which is (or appears to be) a different universe all together. In other words, we should not be thinking of these characters as different characters. They are the same characters, from the same universe, just split off into a new timeline. In other words, we treat the movie as being set in the same universe, but within an alternate timeline. --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::::: And hence the Natasha Yar example. :) --Alan 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) :Indeed. I agree with Alan and say keep the info on the pre-existing pages under a different section, ala Tasha Yar. --From Andoria with Love 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I vehemently disagree. These are similar characters at best. The numerous differences like age changes aside, they are products of a different environment, shaped by a different history. Their associations, behaviors, etc are all altered. Tertiary to the first two points is that JJ has clearly established this IS an alternate/altered reality. We should follow established precedent for alternate realities and give them their own articles.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)